Yes they were nice drivers. I remember back in the 90’s going into a hifi shop and listening to a Duntech speaker that had dual 8” Audex Aerogel drivers in a sealed cabinet. That’s when I decided that sealed was the only way for me. Found a picture. Duntech Viceroy. They also make good use of felt waveguides, and time alignment.
Regarding the aerogel, I need to keep some trade secrets. But you got a hint anyways. 🙂
Last edited:
Duntech has a nice looking sealed speaker here with felt waveguides, and Revelator midwoofers. Bet it sounds killer.
http://duntech.com/products/senator.html
http://duntech.com/products/senator.html
Melamine foam pads are 100 for $7 from China. Much cheaper and more durable than aerogel. They have quite a small tortuous pore that serves to dissipate acoustic wave pressure well. I don’t think nano pores of aerogel are needed nor most effective for dissipating pressure waves in the acoustic range.
Here is an example of how I use hot melt glue to install the foam pads to the inside of a speaker cabinet one at a time. They are 6cm x 10cm x 1cm thick pads.
Electron microscope image of melamine foam structure:
The foam can be used for diffraction control as well in the baffle around tweeters. I have used it around ribbon tweeter apertures.
Here is an example of how I use hot melt glue to install the foam pads to the inside of a speaker cabinet one at a time. They are 6cm x 10cm x 1cm thick pads.
Electron microscope image of melamine foam structure:
The foam can be used for diffraction control as well in the baffle around tweeters. I have used it around ribbon tweeter apertures.
Last edited:
I don’t use the aerogel for inside the cabinet. Only for diffraction, and directivity control on the baffle. Although it works great in the cabinet, it’s pretty expensive for that application. 96% of sound that hits it is absorbed from 600hz up. And can be 3D printed.
Last edited:
Regarding the aerogel, I need to keep some trade secrets. But you got a hint anyways. 🙂
I was under the impression this was do it yourself audio: projects by and for diy.
Sorry to say, but so far, apart from very basic 4 vs 7 liter enclosure sims, we seen little more than a lot of bragging.
I was under the impression this was do it yourself audio: projects by and for diy.
Sorry to say, but so far, apart from very basic 4 vs 7 liter enclosure sims, we seen little more than a lot of bragging.
Yes at 2.5x the thickness, it absorbs more. So this tells us the aerogel is over 2x more absorbent.
Some people might be interested in things that will make their speaker build sound better. Folks who are fine with mediocrity can ignore.
Show us what you have done with this driver, and add some real value to this thread.
Last edited:
And 100x to 1000x more expensive 😛
All kidding aside, thank you for providing the curves. Question: is the top graph Basotect and bottom graph Aerogel? Not labeled so it sure.
It’s actually cheaper because you can get away with less than half the thickness. But those tests don’t accurately reflect the real world advantage for baffle treatment usage. They’re based on putting a puck of it in a tube at different thicknesses. When you’re trying to absorb the off axis sound from a driver, you’re not trying to penetrate though the entire thickness of the material. So you want the material that will absorb the best, with the least thickness.
But the aerogel never reaches the absorption level of the Basotect.
0.5-0.8 absorption >1k is not exactly what I’d call a ‘black hole’.
0.5-0.8 absorption >1k is not exactly what I’d call a ‘black hole’.
If The thicknesses were equal, it would far exceed the basotect. Ok please show us some material that’s more representative of a “black hole” if the worlds more sound absorbent material doesn’t cut it for you.
Don’t know what? I just shared actual data. If you have data that’s more solid, please share. All of the absorption testing is conducted to demonstrate the ability for the material to absorb sound when used to soundproof walls, or noisy enclosures with loud motors or pumps in them. Not for the use in absorbing the off axis frequencies on a speaker baffle. So the material that can absorb the best with the thinnest penetration is the winner for this application. The idea is you want the sound to not reflect off the surface.
Besides I don't want to go over 10mm of thickness with my baffle treatment. Some people can use a foot of Basotech on their baffles if they want. But that wouldn’t meet my design goals.
Last edited:
I think that it's impossible to draw any definitive conclusion from that kind of graphs. For one they just partially cover the same spectrum, and we don't really know what was tested and under what conditions.
I suggest conducting your own testing in the application you’re using the material in. The end results of what you’re trying to achieve is what matters.
Aerogel is a generic term applied to a myriad of materials.
A random graph off the internet is not proof of anything.
You made an extraordinary somewhat scienterrific statement and I’m looking for extraordinary proof like you would be exposed to in any peer review.
Stop with the deflecting, you alone carry the burden of proof.
A random graph off the internet is not proof of anything.
You made an extraordinary somewhat scienterrific statement and I’m looking for extraordinary proof like you would be exposed to in any peer review.
Stop with the deflecting, you alone carry the burden of proof.